I think if we ever got the point where it was economical to engage in laser-alchemy, there are elements far rarer and more useful than gold.
Well, in college I did an experiment where some atoms of silver were irradiated and eventually became cadmium. Talk about adding value!
We are talking about a tiny % of atoms. The best that has been done with gold was Seaborg’s experiment in 1981 where he managed to create several thousand atoms of bismuth into gold. (Note that most methods produce radioactive gold isotopes whose value is basically negative.) Why didn’t this make him rich?
Because it is too freaking expensive by a long shot. Just extracting the gold from the bismuth would break any economic model. Nevermind the relatively immense costs of producing so few.
From here: <<As the NOAA puts it, “Each liter of seawater contains, on average, about 13 billionths of a gram of gold.”>>
So a jug of seawater holds more gold that Seaborg could dream of making. Why aren’t we grabbing gold from such a vast resource?
Because it is too freaking expensive by a long shot.
If you haven’t noticed, gold is mined in large quantities. Not atomic ones. Vast difference in scale.
The big Fort Knox Mine (clever name, not) produced 12,489.7 kg kgs of gold in 2015. That’s about 41 * 10^28 atoms. Just a wee bit more than a few thousand. :dubious:
If you don’t get the difference in the orders of magnitude this represents, you shouldn’t be trying to debunk basic scientific facts.
For the asteroid retrieval thing, it would take an asteroid with hundreds of thousands of kgs of valuable metals in it (and not a lot of other stuff) to make it worthwhile. For metallic asteroids, the iron and nickel are the main products and with other stuff being by products. So you’d need one very, very large asteroid or a special one to get gold in worthwhile amounts.
We’ve crossed lines on a word definition. I’m talking about the people who say the dollar is massively unstable because they draw a line plotting the dollar’s value against gold’s value… and gold’s value is rock-solid straight. By “goldbug” I don’t mean extreme speculators, I mean the people who are dogmatically opposed to the idea of any currency not backed by gold, who hold fiat currency especially to be immoral and very likely a deliberate conspiracy.
Well, in college I did an experiment where some atoms of silver were irradiated and eventually became cadmium. Talk about adding value!
We are talking about a tiny % of atoms. The best that has been done with gold was Seaborg’s experiment in 1981 where he managed to create several thousand atoms of bismuth into gold. (Note that most methods produce radioactive gold isotopes whose value is basically negative.) Why didn’t this make him rich?
Because it is too freaking expensive by a long shot. Just extracting the gold from the bismuth would break any economic model. Nevermind the relatively immense costs of producing so few.
From here: <<As the NOAA puts it, “Each liter of seawater contains, on average, about 13 billionths of a gram of gold.”>>
So a jug of seawater holds more gold that Seaborg could dream of making. Why aren’t we grabbing gold from such a vast resource?
Because it is too freaking expensive by a long shot.
If you haven’t noticed, gold is mined in large quantities. Not atomic ones. Vast difference in scale.
The big Fort Knox Mine (clever name, not) produced 12,489.7 kg kgs of gold in 2015. That’s about 41 * 10^28 atoms. Just a wee bit more than a few thousand. :dubious:
If you don’t get the difference in the orders of magnitude this represents, you shouldn’t be trying to debunk basic scientific facts.
For the asteroid retrieval thing, it would take an asteroid with hundreds of thousands of kgs of valuable metals in it (and not a lot of other stuff) to make it worthwhile. For metallic asteroids, the iron and nickel are the main products and with other stuff being by products. So you’d need one very, very large asteroid or a special one to get gold in worthwhile amounts.
That’s correct but not how goldbugs would console themselves if the price of gold fell. I’m not sure if they would use that line of reasoning in that situation per se, but even on this board we have had them counter the argument that “gold isn’t stable: it’s value has wildly fluctuated over the past 200 years!” with “gold is stable: 1 ounce of gold is still worth 1 ounce of gold” which is of course absurd. ETA: beaten to the punch but oh well.
Fair enough, but I still don’t see why those folks would celebrate their intelligence for owning the one true asset if the value of that asset (both goods and fiat currency) tanks. It’s not proving them right about the dangers of fiat currency, rather the reverse. Perhaps there’s some gold bug psychological subtlety that I’m missing.
I’m with Roderick Femm on this. Monetary policy in the United States isn’t based on a gold standard or Fort Knox any more. I value money because other people value money and also because I have to pay taxes with money.
~Max
The goldbugs that I interact with usually celebrate when the price of gold goes down, because that means gold is on sale and they can buy more of it.
Actually, I do have a degree in Physics…
But even a high school physics 101 student has enough knowledge of elemental transmutation to know that it’s not remotely economical.
Interestingly, Gold is one of the hardest materials to synthesize. If you wanted say - Lead, or Iodine, you might be able to work something out. But Gold isn’t even produced in Supernovae (in any significant quantity). It takes the collision of two Neutron Stars to make it…
That plot is siiiiicck.
It is probably a downside that I overimagine skipping right past degrees of freedom of difficulty due to hypothesized singularity kinds of rapid technological progress.
Ask about coconuts, titanium or potash, and expect intelligent discussion. Ask about gold, and the dialog quickly descends into gibberish! 
Harm? 
Dopers disagree whether the U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 1933 or in 1971, but either date is prior to 2019. Anyway, would a doubling of the gold stock move the price of gold from $1400+ to the official price (used by FedRes to value its stocks) of $40+ ?
Uhhh … wrong?
As others point out, when this science fiction becomes reality, changes in the price of gold will be one of the least interesting consequences.
Google has answers for OP. The “around two-thirds has been mined since 1950” and “estimates vary by as much as 20%” suggest to me that the total of mined gold is not a controversial mystery. The Wiki quote implies that gold is being “consumed*” faster than it is mined. (* Of course, it isn’t “consumed” — some of the “consumption” might be reworking old jewelry into new jewelry.)
Some of it is being consumed. There’s goldschlager, and other alcohol brands with gold-leaf flakes, and the pointless thing where people gild food. Gold, flavorless and unappetizing to look at, lets eat it.
Perhaps instead of physics, we should be looking at advances in sewer treatment.
Recall my previous post, in another “goldbug” thread, where I mention my patent-pending bacteria engineered to extract various metal ions from seawater. I decided that rubidium or magnesium might offer a much better profit rate than gold. As for processing sewage, this prospect became less appetizing to me when I learned that dry human stool averages 40 billion bacteria per gram. :eek:
Did you read any of the other posts on this topic?
Did you read your own post? Whatever your opinion of “goldbugs” might be, do you have a cite for the claim that they think Up is Down?
It doesn’t really sound too off base when you consider all the other weird things they believe. I recently had a gold bug try to carver out a moderate position where we would have a split system where both fiat currency and gold were valuable. Can you imagine such a system? Other than the real world we live in right now. His thing is different Left is right. Up is down.
I am not a gold-bug and I do recognize that they’re mostly idiots. In these goldbug threads, the goldbugs often come across as stupider than the anti-goldbugs — and that’s saying something because much of the SDMB anti-goldbug rantings are nonsense and gibberish.
BUT, goldbugs hope and expect that the price of gold will rise. I will need a cite for Derleth’s incredible claim that they think a fall in the price of gold will vindicate their position.
Exactly. But they wouldn’t be happy if it stayed down, or continued to fall and never rose again.
Oh !!! :eek: Someone moved this here from the Pit. Apologies to all. Especially if any wrongfully construed my post as serious and/or insulting. I ask Mods for just a Suspension instead of a Banning. (Or better yet, just a Note.)
But the phrase “rantings are nonsense and gibberish” is presumably allowed under GD rules, especially if it’s true. For evidence that anti-Goldbug rantings are nonsense and/or gibberish we need look no further than the “Goldbugs think Up is Down” [paraphrased] claim that started the subthread. Can anyone point to a Goldbug post as stupid as that hypothetical?
But are they ever really happy? Like libertarians, I don’t think they’ll be happy unless they find themselves as the Lord Humongous in the post-apocalyptic waste, standing on a pile of gold while burning greenbacks for warmth.